Petition dismissed for delay and merits; employee not liable for TDS demand, employer held responsible under Section 192 Petition dismissed by SC for both delay and merits. HC had held that where salary was paid after TDS deduction, the employer - not the employee - is ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Petition dismissed for delay and merits; employee not liable for TDS demand, employer held responsible under Section 192
Petition dismissed by SC for both delay and merits. HC had held that where salary was paid after TDS deduction, the employer - not the employee - is liable to deposit the deducted tax, so the employee cannot be saddled with the outstanding demand; no substantial question of law arose. SC found an unexplained delay of 532 days in filing the SLP and, on merits, saw no reason to disturb the HC order, thereby dismissing the petition.
There is a "gross delay of 532 days in filing the Special Leave Petition" which "has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner." The Court further holds that, "even otherwise, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court." On both procedural and substantive bases the petition is refused: "The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits." All pending applications are adjudicated: "Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of." The operative outcome affirms the High Court's order, with dismissal grounded in unexplained inordinate delay and lack of merit to justify interference with the impugned decision.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
